You don't want to see sausage or climate policy being made

Tom Nelson points this out –

IPCC sausage-making details: Saudi Arabia cautioned against “giving policy makers the message that CO2 drives global warming”

Summary of the Twelfth Session of the IPCC WGI and IPCC-36, 23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden

Saudi Arabia proposed clarifying that evidence of future climate change is based on models and simulations only.

Concerning the evidence that the key findings of the report are based on, Saudi Arabia suggested adding “assumptions” or “scientific assumptions” to the list. The addition of “scientific assumptions” was supported by Brazil and opposed by Austria, Canada, Germany and Belgium. The latter underscored that assumptions are already implicitly included in the already-listed theory, models and expert judgement. The Group rejected the insertion.

On the headline statement, which states that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and, since 1950, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia, Saudi Arabia said the statement was “alarmist,” urged qualifying the terms “unequivocal” and “unprecedented,” requested using the year 1850 instead of 1950, and called for a reference to slowed warming over the past 15 years.

…After some discussion, Saudi Arabia agreed to accept the statement as presented.

On lower rates of warming in the last 15 years, there was broad agreement on the underlying science as well as on the importance of addressing the phenomenon in the SPM, given the media attention to this issue. A lengthy discussion occurred regarding how to communicate the underlying scientific explanation clearly and in an accessible manner to policy makers to avoid sending a misleading message.

Addressing the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, Saudi Arabia cautioned against “giving policy makers the message that CO2 drives global warming” and further highlighted that not all CO2 emissions result from fossil fuel combustion. Many delegates attempted to clarify and simplify language, while Argentina urged participants to “save energy for more controversial chapters.”

On Thursday morning, Germany and the UK said that their objections were not noted the previous evening when a sentence on overestimates in some models introduced by Saudi Arabia was adopted. Saudi Arabia, supported by Sudan, expressed grave concerns in opening up agreed text, emphasizing that “we are in dangerous waters,” while Sudan added that opening up agreed text raises the issue of equal treatment of countries. No changes were made to the text.

The allegations of climate skeptics of a global warming slowdown in the popular media had some bearing on the emphasis placed on communicating the messages of the SPM. Many delegations highlighted the possibility of climate skeptics misrepresenting, or “cynically” taking sentences out of context. This in turn led to extra-careful deliberations and some time-consuming wordsmithing around the key findings. Delegates debated at length to find the clearest language possible to explain that a claimed “15-year hiatus” is based on a single variable (global mean surface temperature), too short a period of observation for climatic significance, and sensitive to the choice of the starting year from which a 15-year period is calculated.

Advertisements

62 thoughts on “You don't want to see sausage or climate policy being made

  1. You know what they say! With friend’s like Saudi Arabia – who needs enemies.
    Saudi Arabia, that bastion of free inquiry [/sarc]

  2. The true purpose of the Global Warming lie was for quite a while now to bolster public support in the West for biofuel (and wind and solar) subsidies; to become less dependent on Saudi goodwill. Saudi knows this, of course.
    I’m still scratching my head about why our political nomenclatura found it so necessary to sell this policy by deception. When they have the choice of explaining the real reason or lying, do they instinctively choose lying because they hate us?

  3. DirkH, you’ve not got it quite right. Margaret Thatcher started it all in a political struggle with the British coal miners. Independently, a decade later, the despairing Socialists grabbed hold of the Brundtland Report as a means to enforce their socialist program on the world. The global warming idea, originally designed to boost nuclear energy in the UK, was just laying around and adopted by these Watermelons.
    The Saudis don’t want development of competing economic fuel sources, and I suspect they support the Watermelons in their battles against fossil fuels (in the West only, of course) just as the Russians oppose fracking in Western Europe.

  4. Oh, is this rich! It’s almost as if the Onion wrote this. This should be required reading in all student text books followed by a test based on only a mere two multiple choice questions in which the multiple choice involves simply answering true or false.
    A) Is global warming a science issue? True or False.
    B) Is global warming a political issue? True or False.
    The correct answers should be followed by the award of a graduation certificate. Take your pick; kindergarten, grade school, high school, trade school, school of cosmetology, community college, divinity school (for you, Al), school of journalism (ok, skip that one), medical school, university…
    Answer: A) False, B) True

  5. When Dr. Pielke, Sr. pointed out for years that surface temperatures were not a good way to measure any alleged AGW, he was dismissed out of hand. By James hansen in an email posted at Dr. Pielke’s own website.
    Now, just like with Polar Bears and Tibetan glaciers and storms droughts and slr and tropospheric hotspots, when the facts don’t fit the AGW claims, the AGW promoters claim the inconvenient facts were not important any way.
    “Cynical cowards”is a kind way to describe the AGW hype and promotion industry.

  6. Sorry, Robert, I don’t agree with you. The watermelons had various weather-related, global-catastrophes-caused-by-man way back long before Margaret came to power. I remember well the ozone hole and the “threat” those posed to the world way back in the early 70s, and the so-called destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Prior to that it was a list of resources we were going to run out of – fuel, food, even room – People were always to blame and always the solution was socialism, communism and/or the destruction of humankind. We have long been held up as a blight to nature, putting the planet itself at risk. Might we please leave Thatcher out of it?

  7. And this is just the English language version. It boggles the mind that we can mince words in so many languages. How far we’ve come.

  8. The time duration since my team last one a championship is sensitive to the year my team last one a championship.
    Boffins at the IPCC allowed me to figure that out.

  9. A.D. Everard
    October 1, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    There was also the population bomb. I believe there were UN meetings held in Cairo about it. I’m not real familiar with the whole issue but I believe they even went so far as to have engaged in forced sterilizations in developing countries. In the US Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren collaborated on a book on the issue. I believe Ehrlich stated that the US could not carry a population over 280 million and mass famines would result if it grew beyond that. It is important to note that John Holdren was chosen as Barack Obama’s science adviser.
    Before the widely heralded population bomb the UN also worked on the Law Of the Sea Treaty which began, I think, in the 1960s. Certain aspects of treaties regarding global warming (such as wealth and technology transfers) almost seem like a reincarnation of the LOST treaty to which Ronald Reagan hammered in the last nails of its coffin.
    I believe this kind of nonsense may haunt us forever just like the ghouls that keep coming back to life in Hollywood thrillers.

  10. A.D.Everard, I take your points; there were various hippy and enviro groups before. But the Socialists muscled in big-time in the 1980s. I know, I saw it happen; they seized upon the Brundtland report like a life belt in the Atlantic..

  11. So, that which purports to represent definitive science is actually the product of political and ideological negotiation. If it walks like a duck….

  12. This in turn led to extra-careful deliberations and some time-consuming wordsmithing around the key findings.
    As an aerospace systems engineer with 30 years in the business, I have watched how wordsmithing has supplanted a solid focus on science and engineering in my craft. Unarguably, this loss of focus on what really matters is what has lead to ALL major US aerospace projects being over budget, with blown schedules, and inability to deliver on the original requirements. It pains me enough to see the US cede its leadership in my industry because of careless politicizing of the laws of Nature. It is even more painful to see my country cede its leadership in truth and the basis thereof in evidence to serve political whims. It has and will continue to have the same atrophying effect on our freedoms as it has had on our ability to engineer the best aerospace systems known to mankind.

  13. hahaha. these anonymous money boys at the start had no interest in (financially exploiting) CAGW before Aug 2012!!!!
    their solution? “That will almost certainly have to be making carbon dioxide emissions expensive by either taxing or regulating the gas on a global basis”, Steyer says. very lengthy piece that hits all the buttons, including Hank’s far bigger worry – leaving the children & grandchildren with a “catastrophic burden”! can’t stop laughing:
    11 Oct: Bloomberg: Edward Robinson: Climate Change Rescue in U.S. Makes Steyer Converge With (Hank) Paulson
    Billionaire Tom Steyer recalls a dinner at the U.S. Treasury in Washington with two senior department officials and six money managers. It was August 2012, and the meal was part of an effort by the agency to keep up with what the financial community was worrying about. The diners discussed China’s slowdown, Federal Reserve policy and other trends affecting the U.S. economy.
    Steyer says they were overlooking the biggest game changer of all. He told the group the country would have to overhaul its energy policy to address greenhouse gas emissions, Bloomberg Markets magazine will report in its November issue. His fellow guests were skeptical.
    “It’s like I was saying that what’s going to make a difference in the economy is unicorns,” says Steyer, 56, the founder of Farallon Capital Management LLC, a San Francisco hedge-fund firm with about $20 billion in assets. He declines to name the other people present because the meeting was off the record but says they control a lot of money. “I thought to myself: These guys need to be made aware of the risks here.”
    So in December, Steyer ended his 26-year career as a hedge-fund manager and set out to make an economic case for addressing climate change. He wasn’t the only person from the financial world to have this idea: Henry Paulson, Treasury secretary from 2006 to 2009 and a longtime conservationist, and Michael Bloomberg, the outgoing mayor of New York, which had suffered the costliest hurricane damage in its history, were also plotting how to reframe the issue…
    Paulson and Steyer each consulted (Nicholas) Stern separately last spring as they formulated their thinking on the issue…
    Paulson and Steyer make an odd couple…
    They have two things in common. One is Goldman Sachs. Steyer began his career at the investment bank in the early 1980s on the risk arbitrage desk run by Rubin, who went on to become the firm’s co-chairman, from 1990 to 1992. The other is a conviction that Americans will get serious about climate change if they understand how much it’s going to cost…
    The Risky Business analysis will draw on climate models used by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/climate-change-rescue-in-u-s-makes-steyer-converge-with-paulson.html

  14. Think of it as progress. In this conclave, the pause was openly discussed. In the last one, Christopher Monckton had to take over the mic to get it talked about.

  15. Why start in 1998? Heck, start in 2000. It makes no difference, you still get a pause or very slight mean decline.

  16. and sensitive to the choice of the starting year from which a 15-year period is calculated

    The starting moment is right now. The result is the same whether you go back 5, 10, or 16 years. Only someone who is delusional or blinded by ideology would consider that “cherry picking”.

  17. This is rich. Really rich!
    I never expected to see the day when an absolute monarchy makes the quite reasonable request that the propagandists of the West be more transparent and stop fabricating lies and misinformation.
    This is rich. Really rich!

  18. Since they are speaking of anyone skeptical as being “cynical” and picking short phrases to pick on I’d rather, just for a monent, talk about what comes with and after the IPCC sausage. Give me a minute to complete their ‘view’ of us in words to fulfill their expectations. Or should I? Not sure if Anthony will allow me to post such thoughts I have at this very moment. 😉

  19. Saudi objections were entirely justified, and it’s unfortunate they were forced to back down on some of them.

  20. I’ve made sausages before years ago in Ireland. Apart from being fun at the time, especially if you don’t fill the machine properly, I can tell you there is more science in sausage making than climate science today.

  21. The IPPC’s graphical representation of surface global temperatures from 1988 or so to 2012 is coarse.
    More disturbing, I cannot reconcile the coarse features of the IPCC graphs with other graphs.
    See, for example SST at
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/AR5_SST.JPG
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/Reynolds%20SST.jpg
    Does anyone have a list of up to date graphs particularly of global surface air temps since 1997 or so? The IPCC are quoting some positive trends when all I have seen are negative trends.

  22. I you don’t want to see sausages being made, either you do not like sausages or you are looking at the making of very bad sausages …

  23. For those readers, who on the subject of Saudi Arabia’s comments, question the source, please realize that unless you know the Saudi people, your thoughts are greatly shaped by the consistent messaging of the media. The readers of this forum should have a capacity beyond most people to realize how perceptions built for the masses can be woefully incorrect.
    The Saudi people are our best alies in the middle east and know the American people on a very personal basis. It is very common for Saudi’s to have personal realtionships with Americans, Europeans, and the variety of other nationalities that live in Saudi Arabia. If the same proporton of Americans really knew Saudi people, they would know that they are among the most gracious hosts to friends, neighbors and foreign guests. They mostly seek what we seek – a better life for their children, worry about whether they can send them to university, whether to get a new car this year or not, etc.
    As far as the Saudi’s having a conflict of interest in not wanting renewable energy, it should be noted that they have a very active research program in this area with the establishment of the The Solar and Alternative Energy Engineering Research Center at the King Abdullah Univerisity of Science and Technology (KAUST) http://sperc.kaust.edu.sa/Pages/Home.aspx There is also a lot of work being done on establishing wind energy as well.
    The US needs a lot more friends that are as good to us and also have their interests aligned with ours to nearly the same extent.

  24. And we all know that President Obama loves Saudi Arabia – he even prostrated himself before the Saudi king, in complete subjugation:

  25. Silver Ralph;
    A quibble, but bowing from the waist is not the same as “prostrating”, which means lying prostrate on the floor, face down. .

  26. @Tom J says:
    October 1, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    “A) Is global warming a science issue? True or False.
    B) Is global warming a political issue? True or False.”
    My answer is both are false: it is spaghetti monster science. The science is created in the mind, and evidence of its existence is belief. As soon as the belief is taken away the reason for the monster’s existence disappears, and theh monster disappears with it

  27. Friends:
    I am surprised at the reaction to the political negotiation of the Summary for Policymakers being discussed in this thread.
    The IPCC is a purely political organisation which is tasked to provide an apparently scientific excuse for political policies. This is decreed by the “Principles” which govern the IPCC.
    These Principles” are stated at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
    Near its beginning that document says

    ROLE
    2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
    The IPCC exists to provide
    (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
    and
    (b) “and options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
    Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
    The IPCC is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
    This thread is discussing how politicians maintain and oversee that Lysenkoism by editing each statement in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Of course, amendments to the SPM provide disagreements of an SPM with the Report it purports to summarise. So, prior to publication the so-called “scientific” Reports are amended to agree with the SPM.

    When John Houghton was IPCC Chairman. He then decreed,
    “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
    This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the AR5 report will be edited to match the SPM. This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed.
    Such adjustment of Reports to agree with the SPM is stated in Appendix A of the AR5. It says
    4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
    Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.
    I would be grateful if anybody were able to explain why people think the IPCC is a scientific organisation when the purely political nature of the IPCC is declared by its name, its nature, its governing principles and its official procedures as stated in its own words in its own documents.
    Richard

  28. Sorry for the formatting errors at the end of my post. Hopefully the copy of the ending is corrected in this post. Richard
    Such adjustment of Reports to agree with the SPM is stated in Appendix A of the AR5. It says

    4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
    Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.

    I would be grateful if anybody were able to explain why people think the IPCC is a scientific organisation when the purely political nature of the IPCC is declared by its name, its nature, its governing principles and its official procedures as stated in its own words in its own documents.
    Richard

  29. Dirk H: “…do they instinctively choose lying because they hate us?”
    Contempt , not hate. They lie “instinctively” because instinctive.

  30. While it may be true that “You don’t want to see sausage or climate policy being made,” the difference is that only one of the two end products is desirable.

  31. Robert of Ottawa says:
    October 1, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    “DirkH, you’ve not got it quite right. Margaret Thatcher started it all in a political struggle with the British coal miners.”

    No; long before Thatcher there was for instance this
    1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
    Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Fall_2007.html
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
    Margaret Thatcher was one of the users of this political weapon, for a while, but not the inventor.
    Robert of Ottawa:

    ” Independently, a decade later, the despairing Socialists grabbed hold of the Brundtland Report as a means to enforce their socialist program on the world. The global warming idea, originally designed to boost nuclear energy in the UK, was just laying around and adopted by these Watermelons.”

    It was the other way around.
    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    – Club of Rome,
    The socialist globalists created it as a weapon long before Thatcher picked it up.
    Robert of Ottawa

    “The Saudis don’t want development of competing economic fuel sources, and I suspect they support the Watermelons in their battles against fossil fuels (in the West only, of course) just as the Russians oppose fracking in Western Europe.”

    No; the watermelons are paid by the EU commission.
    http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/06/fun-finding-the-eco-lobbys-funding.html
    Their job is to convince the EU population to voluntarily scale back their standard of living. The Saudis WANT us to consume their product.
    Similarly, the EU pays the watermelons to demonstrate against fracking to delay the commercial use of shale gas. They probably see it as a strategic reserve.

  32. Peter Jones says:
    October 1, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    “The Saudi people are our best alies in the middle east and know the American people on a very personal basis.”

    We know. They paid for Barack Hussein Obama’s university education, after all.

  33. richardscourtney says:
    October 2, 2013 at 2:20 am
    “The IPCC is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism. ”
    From what I’ve read it looks like Stalin really believed in Lysenkoism; because the soviets were enamoured with the idea that they could mold humans like Lysenko claimed to be able to mold plants.
    I don’t think the leaders of the West seriously consider CO2AGW to be remotely valid science.

  34. DirkH and Robert of Ottawa:
    I write in hope of halting the side-track of how the AGW-scare started.
    You are both wrong. The origin of the AGW-hypothesis can be traced back to 1896 and this
    http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
    However, the AGW-scare was initiated by Margaret Thatcher and she did it for much more personal reasons than attacking miners. I predicted the scare before it happened and my reason for the prediction together with an explanation of its beginnings is at
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/
    Richard

  35. On the headline statement, which states that

    warming of the climate system is unequivocal and, since 1950

    , many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia,

    Saudi Arabia

    said the statement was “alarmist,” urged qualifying the terms “unequivocal” and “unprecedented,”

    requested using the year 1850 instead of 1950

    , and called for a reference to slowed warming over the past 15 years.

    The temperature rise between 1910 to 1940 was also “unequivocal”. No wonder the Saudi’s were ignored. It’s all about getting the right message across during the political process.
    Global mean surface temperatures 1850 to recent times.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/j/l/warmingtrend.gif
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif

  36. richardscourtney says:
    October 2, 2013 at 3:55 am
    “I write in hope of halting the side-track of how the AGW-scare started.”
    I was not talking about when the idea of CO2AGW started but about the start of its political use.
    Please excuse me for trying to correct Robert’s misconceptions.
    As to your misconceptions about when CO2-AGW or CO2-Ice Age Scare became political; I think I don’t need to repeat myself; I provided links; and will make no further comments on this thread; as you seem to think that this is of no use when trying to understand the current political influence Germany takes.
    I think you’re wrong; but I said what I wanted to say.

  37. DirkH:
    re your post at October 2, 2013 at 4:08 am.
    For clarity, I your point that use of AGW as a political tool was debated by several people in several meetings prior to Margaret Thatcher making it political scare. Indeed, if you read the introduction in my link you will see that. But it is an historical fact that few people had even heard of it until she promoted it. I wrote to point out that historical fact, and that she did not promote it to attack miners.
    And that is all I and – and I hope others – have to say on the matter here.
    Richard

  38. Oh, maybe I should drop another two links for the ones who are interested in how the current political use of the CO2AGW lie is organized.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8469883/Lobbyists-who-cleared-Climategate-academics-funded-by-taxpayers-and-the-BBC.html
    http://www.globeinternational.info/
    “Last night Globe’s general secretary Adam Matthews said: “Globe is not a lobbying organisation. It is an international group of legislators. It was set up by the legislators themselves.”
    Interested readers can find out which of their elected representatives of any party in the West are members of GLOBE international themselves.

  39. It really makes you wonder, when the expenditure (or otherwise) of trillions of taxpayer dollars/pounds are at stake, that the whole matter comes down to ‘wordsmithing’….

  40. They really need to put a warning label on that climate policy sausage; something to the effect that consumption could be harmful, even lethal to economies, and to consume at own risk. Otherwise, they could be held liable for the consequences.

  41. “On lower rates of warming in the last 15 years, there was broad agreement on the underlying science as well as on the importance of addressing the phenomenon in the SPM, given the media attention to this issue.”
    !given the media attention! that’s the key. Otherwise all those stupid people out there would just take what we give them.

  42. Sorry, Richard of Ottawa but your history of the miners’ strike is not correct. The National Union of Mineworkers leader Arthur Scargill believed that he could hold an elected government to ransom and embarked on an ill-thought out strike to bring down Baroness Thatcher’s Conservative government as it had the hopeless Heath’s a decade earlier. In taking on Mrs T, he picked the wrong opponent. Aware of what happened before – she was a minister in Heath’s government – she ensured that there were huge stocks of coal at all the power stations so that they could go on generating in the event of a strike. Scargill’s strike therefore dragged on for months so that support amongst moderate miners waned as their money dwindled away. Miners began to return to work and eventually a break away union was formed by those miners not willing to be used as political pawns for Marxist ideology. Scargill’s strike petered out and his power was broken.
    Thatcher then embarked upon the ‘dash for gas’ to use North Sea gas for power generation to reduce dependence on coal. Not the best strategy but understandable given the power of the unions in those days despite strikes being instigated by a minority of members – something that still exists to this day. Demand for coal fell and mines closed – some were becoming uneconomic anyway in the face of cheaper imports of low-sulphur coal. Coal is much better suited for power generation than gas as the gas can then be used for domestic heating and cooking, and industrial processes.

  43. richardscourtney says:
    October 2, 2013 at 3:55 am …………….
    I agree with your main points.
    The others are nitpicking ….. [as in; “your shoelace is untied”]
    Good post.

  44. Just an observation on “sensitive to the choice of the starting year from which a 15-year period is calculated.” When dealing with the leading edge of a data set (in this case, the present, which keeps moving forward year by year), this criticism is not, and can not, be valid — except for the length of the period. It will always be starting NOW and going back XX years.
    This criticism is thus an obfuscation — trying to impugn the obvious, necessary logical choice of “the most recent XX years” (in which you can only select the length of the period) with the cherry-picking involved in selecting only the XX year periods in the past that give the desired result.
    It is logical nonsense. It is the reverse that is cherry-picking. Insisting now on 30 year periods or whatever. Or, like nearly all GMST graphs created to illustrate Global Warming. starting in 1850 (or 1750), instead of 1950, when GW is supposed to have started.

  45. Saudi Arabia is walking a fine line between increasing the cost of their product by backing the global warming hoax and forcing people into using alternative fuels.
    Oil companies like the green movement because it increases the price of oil, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace are backed by oil companies. I’m sure the Saudis appreciated Greenpeace for trying to stop the Russians from offshore drilling, a fall scarcity increases the price.
    On the other hand they know if they push the green agenda too far it might force the market to actually look into viable alternatives to oil and not just wind and solar.

  46. As Richard Courtney points out
    richardscourtney says:
    October 2, 2013 at 2:20 am
    The IPCC was founded as a political body to keep the “science” focused on human caused global warming and to serve governments and there has been no pretense about that (and to control the message, of course). What is appalling to me is that the scientists in the IPCC flock have allowed themselves to be used and shepherded in such a shameful way for so long. They started out probably trying to do science and when IPCC abuse became evermore evident, some of integrity got themselves out of the pen, but what can we say about those who stayed and are now rushing around trying to shoehorn present inconvenient developments in actual climate to fit the CAGW meme. I hope, when the IPCC stuff is finally seen for what it is that these charlatans don’t escape history. Its too late for a “truth commission” apology from these guys given the enormity of the damage done to the world economy and science, and the dark age end game planned from the beginning. I suppose a defense pleading abject stupidity could be believable for most, but there is dozen or so too amoral for a defense.

  47. Brian H says:October 2, 2013 at 1:02 am
    Silver Ralph;
    A quibble, but bowing from the waist is not the same as “prostrating”, which means lying prostrate on the floor, face down.
    _____________________________
    Yeah, we know.
    But in presidential terms, that was a prostration. Do you think any other senior world leader or senior monarch (past or present) would genuflect in that fashion? Especially to a minor monarch of a flyblown desert land? No, precisely. It clearly indicated that Obama felt subservient to the Saudi royalty, and by implication America is also now subservient to the will of the Saudi monarchy.
    Sad times.

  48. Imagine a world where the last super-power will capitulate and cede it’s Divine Providence and snuff the Beacon on the Hill at the behest of The Seychelles and Sudan ,Saudi Arabia and all other despotic juntas..
    Oh, wait, We don’t have to imagine.
    . Does North Korea get their say too

  49. Gerry – England:
    At October 2, 2013 at 5:50 am you provide your revisionist version of the destruction of the UK coal industry.
    I do not intend to start or engage in a discussion of that side-track. However, there may be some people interested in the true history of how and why Thatcher destroyed that industry. I provided a brief account on WUWT here
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/weekend-open-thread-6/#comment-1274534
    Please note the PS of that post.
    Richard

  50. Gerry – England:
    I am offended by your trolling which ends in your offensive post at October 3, 2013 at 6:08 am.
    My account is factually accurate. Your distortions are merely political and propagandist revisionism from someone who was not involved.
    Richard

Comments are closed.